Ultraviolet a waste of time?

Does anybody find this format a waste of time? As somebody who uses Itunes I use to get alot of digital copy's for my iPad. This new ultraviolet format is a waste of time and just greed so they don't have to use Apple products.

Are the digital copies HD if you buy the bluray version? It would save ripping it to mkv which can take a bit of time if you want to reduce the size! But then again I hate the idea if DRM so maybe ripping is better.

I like all my movies in one place on my iDevices. I also like to own movies outright. It doesn't happen so often now but in the past it was known for movies to be banned from sale after release. I assume that if this happened today then the ultraviolet copy would be unplayable.

For the sake of about £7, I'll download a proper copy from iTunes if I like the blu ray.

I don't do iTunes, as I don't do Apple, end of, but the Ultraviolet format is annoying as hell.

I recently got Doctor Who: Series 7A which came with an ultraviolet copy. First it made me sign up with Ultraviolet, then with Flixter, then I had to navigate around a useless website to try and find anything remotely resembling a link to a download for offline viewing. As it turned out, there is no laptop/PC download even available for that title, and to put it on my phone required me to download episodes one at a time, AFTER changing the format so they were compatible on my clearly unusual device... a Samsung Galaxy S2. :rolleyes:

It was a waste of time, a waste of space and I'll just settle for popping the DVD in when I want to watch it... if I'm away from a DVD player? Well, it'll give me something to look forward to... I'm sure I'll come across some DVD-time quicker than any of this bumbling mess

I like all my movies in one place on my iDevices. I also like to own movies outright. It doesn't happen so often now but in the past it was known for movies to be banned from sale after release. I assume that if this happened today then the ultraviolet copy would be unplayable.

For the sake of about £7, I'll download a proper copy from iTunes if I like the blu ray.

The same could happen with films from iTunes though. Apple could pull them from the iTunes Store, preventing them from being re-downloaded (or streamed). Hell, it could probably even revoke the DRM permission so you can't play them anymore too even if you already have them. You don't own the film outright - you have a licence to watch it.

[Not saying it's a good thing, just pointing out that in this respect iTunes is no different to UV]

Seems kinda pointless to me - you can download free software that will rip a DVD or Blu-Ray to a digital file

This is a great example of how the media industry makes life worse for people using their "legal"- or more accurately "industry-endorsed"- file copies than it is for people simply ripping their DVD (even if they'd paid for it).

(Scroll to the bottom for the tl;dr version)

The very first time I saw a case boasting "Blu-Ray/DVD and Digital Copy", I knew straight off that the so-called "digital copy" (**) could be dismissed as worthless without further investigation. Why? Because their mindset and previous behaviour with over-DRMed schemes for "legal" music and movie downloads made obvious what was coming.

It was utterly predictable that it would include at least some of the following pain-in-the-backsideishness:-
- Require you to install some crappy piece of software on your computer before you could view the film
- ...which would probably fail to work on your machine for some "interesting" (read; unclear and pain-in-the-backside) reason
- ...maybe mess up your computer's settings
- ...quite possibly invade your privacy by sending stats or information back to the studio
- ...probably stop working under the next version of Windows (and they won't bother fixing it), rendering it effectively useless in a few year's time (this one's near certain if it's a custom app)
- ...work on a crappily limited set of portable devices that probably doesn't include your model, and certainly not the (as-yet-unreleased) one you'll buy in a year's time
- ...and since every studio and/or distributor would have their own different crappy custom DRM software you needed to view their s****y blockbusters, the nuisance would be ten times worse.

Plus, they'd probably
- Restrict what you could do with that copy, and forcing you to faff around with their crappy app to juggle the computers you can play it on (maximum; three, or whatever) to work with your new laptop. Ooh... you did remember to deactivate your old machine before you gave it away, didn't you?
- Be reliant on the company keeping online DRM servers working, which they probably won't be in a few year's time (*)

Now, I'm not saying all the above apply to all "digital copies". Just that enough of them would to either render your digital unusable and/or too much hassle to use- if not today, then certainly a few years down the line.

(*) I noticed one such copy came with the small-print disclaimer that it only lasted a year or something. My guess is that it wouldn't instantly fail after that- rather, it was put there so that when you eventually couldn't get it to work for the above reasons they could say "tough ****!"

(**) Offtopic from the rest of my comment, but... "Digital copies" is a stupid name in that it implies that the DVD and Blu-Ray (or CD) *aren't* digital.... they b****y well are! Even more stupid is the use of "digital" to mean online or "in the cloud". Basically, this highlights that despite the move from a technophobic to tech-obsessed society in the past 10-15 years, people fundamentally don't know what "digital" means and think it's just a vague work meaning "hi-tech". Hint; when discussing the move to online music streaming, we're not moving from "CD to digital". CDs already were f****** digital- the clue's in the full name "Compact Disc Digital Audio". Rant over. :mad:

tl;dr - Media industries' paranoia over copying was already well-known and it was clear that they'd ruin it with over-heavy DRM that made it more hassle than it was worth to bother using their "digital copy"

I registered for Ultraviolet, but when I try to log in, the username I created (which was valid at the time) is too long for the login box so can't be entered! I gave up after that, what a pointless waste of time

I actually like the quality of the downloads on my iPhone and the fact that they don't take up nearly as much space as films I've bought from iTunes.

What does bug me though is that I've downloaded the film to my phone so it should work fine offline but my downloaded films will only work when I have wi-fi. I have the same issue with downloaded programmes on the BBC iPlayer app. Is this likely to be a problem with how the apps function on a 4S or is it perhaps the result of a setting on my phone that I could change to watch these offline?

I actually like the quality of the downloads on my iPhone and the fact that they don't take up nearly as much space as films I've bought from iTunes.

What does bug me though is that I've downloaded the film to my phone so it should work fine offline but my downloaded films will only work when I have wi-fi. I have the same issue with downloaded programmes on the BBC iPlayer app. Is this likely to be a problem with how the apps function on a 4S or is it perhaps the result of a setting on my phone that I could change to watch these offline?

Try updating the Flixster app, that was an issue, but they fixed it so you can access downloaded films offline (but only from the last account used to log in)

With iTunes digital copies, all I need is an iTunes account, no matter the studio.

But with UltraViolet, I now not only have an UltraViolet account but also a Flixster account and a Sony Pictures account...And that's only after two films from two studios.

Why can't it simply require *one* account, with UltraViolet?

Stupid system...

Because every company wants your information so they can spam you with loads of shit (I gave Paramount US my email address for a UV copy now they keep sending me shit about MTV) and there are rules about data sharing, that could prove problematic...

its a much better system than the old digital copies but its being hindered by teething problems and the requirement to have mutiple logins at mutiple places.

It seems somewhat like I was rushed before it was actually ready and it should have required a single account to be created a UV's website and for mobile devices it should have required a single UV branded app rather than trying to push users into what's a bloated app if you just want to watch or download your movies.

This is the sort of 'freedom' the paranoid, rent-seeking content owners foresee for everything--rent it till we can't be bothered supporting it any more, download again a low grade version of what you've already paid for and is on the disk, fill your life with hassle and your hardware with spyware.

CLL Dodge also got it right in post #6--ignore it and it will go away.